 |
 |
We found some information on other health related funding bills for Jack Savely, and anyone else interested in this issue. The Ryan White Comprehenive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990 (S. 2240; Public Law 101-381) "authorized $875 million in fiscal 1991 for programs aimed at helping health and social service organizations cope with the mouninh costs of the AIDS epidemic." (Congress and the Nation 1989-1992, p. 588). The Ryan White Care Reauthorizaion Act of 1995 was intro- duced by Kassebaum. It's main purpose is to "provide emergency relief grants to cities disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic...(and) provide formula grants to States and territories to improve the quality, availability, and organization of health care and support services." (Kassebaum's statement, March 28, 1995 as quoted in the Congressional Record.) The bill is currently back in the Senate to approve compromises made with the House version. Although this is a disease specific bill, it funds health and social services, rather than research, so I don't know if we can convincingly compare it with the Udall Bill. There is other funding legislation, which may be closer o to Udall. This information is taken from the 1993 Congressional Quarterly Almanac, p. 357-365. The 1993 NIH Reauthorization Bill (S.1; Public Law 103-43) was signed into law on June 10, 1993. It was co-sponsored by Sen. Kassebaum. This law " authorized $225 million for research on the causes of and cures for breast cancer and $100 milliion for prevention, detection and treatment in fiscal 1994, and unspecified sums for fical 1995 and 1996. This was the first time that the bill had earmarked an authorization for a particular cancer." Also: "authorized $75 million for research... of ovarian cancer for fiscal 1994." Also: "authorized $72 milliion for research... of prostate cancer in fiscal 1994. Also: "authorized the creation of a $100 million fund each year from fiscal 1994 through fiscal 1996 for unanticipated research projects (for AIDS). The fund was designed to allow the AIDS office to respond to the rapid pace of AIDS research, augment funding for existing research or fund promising new projects." It was interesting that the breast cancer funding met with similar oppositiion about funding for specific diseases, from some politicians, as well as from some cancer researchers. The CQ Almanac reported that it passed because of the breast cancer lobbyists. "Congressional staff members described the lobbyists with a mixture of admiration and frustration as 'tenacious' and persistent.'" Also, "Several observers attributed the success to the coalitio's ability to make breast cancer funding a way for members of Congress - especially men - to show their commitment to women's health even if they opposed abortion rights." So much for th the argument that medical research funding should be kept free from politics. I'm just summarizing alot of information. If anyone wants more specific details, please e-mail me. Linda Herman [log in to unmask] P.S. Good luck o those of you going to Washington next week. Our thoughts are with you.